Categories

As I watch the media “spin” one of it’s own, Keith Olbermann, I find myself in a place that is rare for me. Unlike almost everyone on the left that I know, I agree with MSNBC’s decision to suspend Olbermann, whom I watch most every weeknight.

One of the things that makes MSNBC not just left of Fox but much more credible is that it actually has journalistic ethics. How can the left constantly call on Hannity to be punished for violating journalistic ethics if we allow Olbermann to do so? It would be hypocritical. Yes, one can debate the wisdom of MSNBC’s policy, but it is in place, written down, and they are following it. That is commendable.

This policy is a common one. Where I work (ABC) news department staff are not even allowed to express an opinion on an individual running for office or pending legislation/appointments to ANYONE, including their friends. Donating to a campaign would get Diane Sawyer fired. A suspension of Olbermann without pay is a clear message to MSNBC’s viewers (and Olbermann) that they take ethics seriously while at the same time not firing the man for being human.

There is a difference between punditry and advocacy. Punditry uses facts (at least it is supposed to) to support a political philosophy and/or point out the inherent flaws in another philosophy or set of actions. A perfect example is how Rachel Maddow has often taken Obama to task for behavior that contradicts his stated political philosophy. Advocacy is when you directly implore people to take action based on your support of a person or issue, not on information about the person or issue. No one would ever consider Maddow to be “in the bag” for Obama. Yet what if you found out that she actually was giving money to Obama? What if she started showing up at his campaign rallies? Would you be so sure?

Another argument I hear is that the action is hypocritical because GE donates huge amounts of money to political campaigns and causes in their interest, and GE owns NBC. Well, as an employee of a television network owned by Disney I can tell you how ridiculous a point that is. That is like saying that it is hypocritical of me to lean left because ABC News leans right. We work for the same people, but we are not the same people and we are not even in the same business. I believe strongly that corporate spending on political campaigns and advocacy advertising should be strictly limited, but I do not see how it applies at all to this issue. If GE policy was directly linked to MSNBC Policy, there wouldn’t be an MSNBC.

Finally, I am disturbed by those who find his behavior acceptable because as a pundit he should not be expected to be objective. This buys into a false concept, “objective” news.

Objective news is, and always has been, a myth. Was Edward Murrow objective when he took on McCarthy? Were Woodward and Bernstein objective when they took on Nixon? No. In both cases they had stories to tell, and those stories clearly gave away there beliefs as to what this country is or is not supposed to be. Hell, Hearst started the Spanish-American War! The concept of an “objective” media was really born out of the right after Watergate as a way of being able to negatively equate Journalism, which at the time was more left than right, with political favoritism. Eventually in the age of 24/7 news the right realized the power of taking that one step further. They decided to wear objective journalism as an outer layer of skin, and the “fair and balanced” FOX News was born.

The correct measurement of quality journalism is not “objective” Vs “subjective”. There are two correct measurements for journalism; “true” Vs. “false” and “complete” Vs. “incomplete.”

By those measures I believe that Rachel Maddow is the preeminent journalist of our time. Yes, she has a story to tell and she makes no bones about what that story is, just like Murrow. Her research and accuracy is also impeccable like Murrow’s and her completeness in her research is beyond reproach. She regularly has guests from all sides, and is very fair in her questioning. Her reporting from Afghanistan had more time spent in the field with American Soldiers and their Commanders, and more camera time with them speaking openly, then any other coverage I have seen anywhere. She spent two weeks, at different times, in the Gulf Region during the BP disaster, actually going out to the southernmost safety station in the Delta to discuss how you measure oil in a swamp and by boat out into the areas where BP claimed they had cleaning crews in place to show that they weren’t there.

I thus think it is very telling that while calling for the suspension to be lifted, Maddow also supported MSNBC’s decision to impose it. This is even more impressive since Olbermann has been her advocate, mentor & friend and is in many ways the reason she has a television show.

Again, the problem is not that Olbermann donated, it is that he did not seek permission from his producers beforehand. A person does not have to be objective to be fair, but they do have to be open and honest. How a reporter spends money on issues or people that he is reporting on is relevant to the reader/viewer’s ability to decide what weight to give to the story, just as in our legal system an appearance of conflict is enough to dictate if a Judge can hear a case. In the measurement of “complete” Vs. “incomplete” Olbermann comes up on the “incomplete” side. One of the three people he donated to he actually wrote a check for immediately following an appearance on Countdown.

A journalist’s subjectivity is supposed to be in the material that they choose to cover; what do they think it is important to know and how do they communicate it honestly and effectively? It is hard to be seen as honest or effective if you are giving money to people you talk about on the air and don’t tell the people who put you on the air about it. Subjectivity does not permit unethical behavior any more than objectivity assures ethical behavior. I think MSNBC has handled it perfectly, have sent a strong message, and should now let the man deliver a mea culpa and get back to work.

Like this:

Bless both your analytic hearts, Doug & You. I agree that contracts should be honored
but also that EVERYONE should be able to give whatever they want under the present law
as long as they say who they are.. NOT under pseudos such as ” Apple Pie and Mothers
for Eco-Recovery” when the real contributor is ” The Rapacious Strip Miners of America”.
The real solution would be public funding for Elections, but I dream on……
Dad

Baiscally agreed with your comment on my comment except that I think appearances do count for something. People providing background facts should appear trustworthy to as many folks as is practical, not just those who know them well. When they do not it many raise doubts about their colleagues and their organization. So I agree that some response was required. I have no opinion on the particular response.

I assume that is sarcasm? After all, 501(c)(4)s don’t have to reveal the source of funding for ads they purchase on behalf of an issue or candidate. Also, while Olbermann’s donations may be public record, his intention to donate is not. Thus the failure to inform his producer before an interview that he will be writing a check immediately after the interview remains an issue of openness.

Also, openness today is a relative term. With the flood of information that is available, just because something is open and public does not mean that it is in fact “known.” Essentially what MSNBC’s policy boils down to is that it is the on-air personality’s responsibility to make sure that his intentions are known by his producer; it is not the producer’s responsibility to scour public records for the on-air personality’s previous activity.

Not sarcasm. Perhaps I should have included the word “individual.” 501 c-whatevers have nothing to do with this as far as I know. Individual political giving is easy to look up given about 5 min and Google. No scouring necessary. And if it is so important to producers to have this information, the onus should be on them to figure out how to collect it.

I really can’t figure out why anyone cares. Maybe you can explain that to me better. It’s no problem for me if a journalist, even one aspiring to a kind of objective detachment that Olbermann most definitely is not, wants to make contributions, in his capacity as a private citizen. Does he lose the rights of a citizen to participate in legal ways, that are a matter of public record, in the political process, just cause he has a TV show? Maybe he shouldn’t be allowed to vote either?

Just for the record, I think Olb is a gaseous windbag who hasn’t done the Left much good with his preening brand of advocacy (though I did like him on ESPN). But I hate to see someone crucified for the wrong reasons.

Also, to me this is not a free speech issue but an issue of employee rights. MSNBC may have had a “policy,” but not one that was consistently enforced or that there was any evidence that anyone took seriously until someone had the idea of using it as a pretext to go after Olb. Generally speaking I assume you agree with the idea that employers should not be able to dictate employee’s political contributions, and that holds true in either a positive or a negative sense. They should not be allowed to prohibit contributions, and again since these things are on the public record, the inform your producer requirement seems to me to be pointless. Explain to me how public would be better served by having the producer informed in advance about Olb’s contributions.

Finally I hate to see this kind of prissy behavior whereby Democrats criticize other Democrats for things that all Republicans do (in this case FOX) — but We shouldn’t do them, because dammit, We’re Supposed To be Better Than They Are. Wrong wrong wrong. Politics is not a moral superiority contest. I don’t watch TV myself, but I would be happy if I thought MSNBC was just as unscrupulously liberal as Fox is unscrupulously conservative. That’s their purpose in life, to be some sort of counterweight to the evil empire. Not to be some sort of moral exemplars of how the world ought to be.

If the other team is using corked bats, and the umpires are not punishing them for it, then I want my team to start corking its own bats. Do we want to win the world series, or go home telling ourselves how ethical we are? I want to win. Lots of important things are at stake.

I hate Hannity, but I have no problem with Hannity’s contributions either. Frankly I think to boil the argument against Fox down to “journalistic ethics” misses the point. Fox is an efficient, well-funded, incredibly successful propaganda machine, having a toxic, corrosive effect on American society. The complaint against Fox is much bigger than a few ethical transgressions.

I understand and share the sentiment, but the “corked bats” analogy is precisely what scares me. Escalation. Fox is bad enough. Having something equally bad on our side would somehow help us win? Win what? I don’t have a problem with the contributions either. My only concern is the one I have already iterated, about the need to know what those whom we trust for honest information are doing with their money. I don’t think the solution is just to accept that we can’t trust them to be honest so we can let them play on Fox’s field.

Am I glad that Olbermann’s donations show an intellectual consistency with his positions? Absolutely. Do I object to him having made them? No. Do I think that not revealing to your producer that you are donating money to guests on your show is ethically questionable? Yes. The way that the viewer would be better served is that an objective third party who has a role in the decision-making process on the show can look out for potential conflicts of interest.

For me this is not an issue of Democrats criticizing Democrats for doing what Republicans do. That analogy doesn’t work because of the qualifier at the end (“in this case FOX”). You are quite correct that FOX is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party (or s it the other way around? Who knows?) It is no accident that Roger Ailes is running the show there. But MSNBC and the Democratic Party are not running each other, and often are even at odds with each other. It is not a question of being better or worse than “they” are, but of being something entirely different. Fox IS a propaganda machine, you are correct. MSNBC is a news outlet; a Progressive news outlet beyond a doubt, but not a water carrier. The fact that MSNBC has scruples is one of the very few reasons that people have any idea what is really going on.

That said, Olbermann’s statement today makes it clear that the way MSNBC handled it was wrong, and on that I stand corrected and tomorrow I will be adding an update to my post reflecting that. For a code of ethics to be effective it must be applied equally in all cases. The fact that it is not raises legitimate questions about ‘censoring’ Olbermann, and that does concern me.

Would love to hang sometime, and meet your family. My contact info is in my FB profile. Drop me a line or send me your info.

Olbermann is not in trouble for having opinions or making donations. He is in trouble for doing it without clearing it with his producer first.Personally I think that is reasonable.

Needing permission from MSNBC is not the same as needing permission from his “corporate masters”, which would be GE. If somebody is going to interview someone and then literally write them a check for $2,400 before they even walk out the door (as Olbermann did in one case), the producer should AT LEAST know about it so they can decide if it makes sense to do the interview as planned. Freedom of Speech is not the same as requiring someone to provide a forum for that speech with no questions asked.

Speaking of GE, while I am against ANY corporation, PAC or Union being allowed to spend money in the political arena (I believe all donations should be individual) the reality is that there is a big difference between MSNBC donating money and the parent company of GE donating money (for starters, MSNBC doesn’t while GE does). In a mega corporation like Disney or GE there is far less synergy than people tend to believe. ABC News and DIsney have nothing to do with each other beyond budgeting for the division. If GE’s donations and political interests had anything to do with MSNBC there would not BE an MSNBC. We certainly have a right to hold those who are providing us with information (the Olbermanns of the world) to a higher standard than those we know we need to be provided information about (the GEs of the world).

Dave, GE owns MSNBC 100%. MSNBC signs the contract with Olbermann. So, yes, GE AND MSNBC (one thing) are Olbermann’s corporate masters. And you are 100% wrong that based on GE’s policies, there wouldn’t be an MSNBC. There *IS* an MSNBC which should give you a clue. “I think therefore I am.” GE, like all publicly-traded corporations, has one and only one paramount policy and that is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize shareholder value. The end. If MSNBC is a unique product that inhabits a niche, generates an acceptable margin that surpasses the corporation’s hurdle rate, and is a type of product that GE has a unique skill set to be able to operate more efficiently than competitors, then it should exist. That’s all the parent company cares about.

Why the Hell should I have to get permission from my boss before I exercise ANY Constitutional right to which I am inalienably endowed? If I interview someone on my show and decide I love them on the spot and want to give them $1,000, there is no “intention”. It’s not pre-meditated. So, therefore, I don’t have to inform my corporate master of my intention since I didn’t have one.

I should, however, be required to fully DISCLOSE the $1,000 donation once made, and if I were a man of honor and integrity, I would disclose it the next night on my show. But still, none of this should take away from my right to donate. This is a free-speech right as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. So if it’s inalienable for GE or MONSANTO, it’s inalienable for Doug Haxall, Dave Norman or Keith Olbermann. And if my employer doesn’t like it, f*#$ ’em – one of the many reasons I’m self-employed.

Do not be an apologist for any private entity’s rights to deny you your Constitutional rights. They are INALIENABLE. If a Corp tries to take away those rights from you, you should sue them or quit. Pee-tests violate my 4th and 5th Amendment rights and should only be permitted on the basis of endangering the public, i.e. if I want to be a bus driver or crane operator. The fact that journalists at ABC are not even allowed to discuss their political preferences with their friends is ABSOLUTELY PREPOSTEROUS and goes a long way towards telling me why there are so many sellouts, apologists and whimps reporting mainstream news. They are the types of people who are willing to surrender their inalienable constitutional rights for a paycheck or some fame. F@#$ them, too!!!!!!!

Doug, when you say “GE, like all publicly-traded corporations, has one and only one paramount policy and that is their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize shareholder value. The end. If MSNBC is a unique product that inhabits a niche, generates an acceptable margin that surpasses the corporation’s hurdle rate, and is a type of product that GE has a unique skill set to be able to operate more efficiently than competitors, then it should exist. That’s all the parent company cares about. ” you are essentially agreeing with me. GE doesn’t give an eff what Olbermann says as long as MSNBC is making them money and not causing them money-losing agitation. That is what makes them his employers, not his masters. And you spent way too much time and energy getting an MBA to truly believe that a company and the corporation that own it are 100% one and the same. The child is responsible to the parent, but that does not make them the parent. NBC is a business in and of itself, currently for sale. In fact for every person who is screaming about GE’s behavior there is another person blaming Comcast.

MSNBC is a brand, and has the right to establish standards for those who represent the brand. No one forced Olbermann to sign with MSNBC. He could have gone with CNN, which does not have a political contribution clause with its hosts. He chose not to.

A news show is a lot more than the host. It is every bit as much the producers, the writers, and the researchers. There fates are interlocked. When Dan Rather was shoved out the door at CBS so was his producer. Since the producer is the one who in the end manages the relationships between the host, writers, and researchers it is as much his (or her) name on the line. There is a reason that when Maddow or O’Donnell guest hosted Countdown they sounded like Keith, though they sound nothing like him on their own shows. There is a reason that Chris Hayes sounds like Rachel when he guest hosts for Rachel.

The requirement in Olbermann’s contract was that he inform his producer, not an MSNBC exec. This is the rule that he violated. If I were a betting man, I would bet that Olbermann didn’t want to tell his producer because the producer might have suggested that they tone down the attacks on Hannity for being a shill for candidates.

No one has denied Keith Olbermann his free speech. There is no constitutional right to be paid $14 million a year to speak nationally to 1,000,000 people every weeknight. Further, no one is telling him what he can or can’t say. What they are telling him is that they have a set of ethical standards that he is expected to follow. You may not agree with those standards, but he did when he took the job.

Not only does a news outlet have a right to both set and enforce a code of conduct, in my opinion it has a responsibility to. It is a failure to do so that gave us Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and the entire Fox News Channel. It is, as Rachel Maddow herself said Thursday night, the proof that not all news networks are the same, and that MSNBC is “SO not Fox”.

I for one like the idea that when a reporter interviews people on his show and is also giving him money, that he needs someone to first agree with him that it is okay – thus guaranteeing that someone else knows about it. They did not fire him. they gave him a time out, and they sent a clear message that they have standards and expect people to act responsibly. I think in a day and age when Beck can go on Fox and call Obama a Nazi Racist who is destroying our economy to the point that you must buy gold – all while being a paid spokesman for a large gold trading firm – it is good to know that on the other end of the dial there is someone taking a deep breath and thinking about that sort of thing before they give someone the microphone.

Olberman’s statement today:
“…I also wish to apologize to you viewers for having precipitated such anxiety and unnecessary drama. You should know that I mistakenly violated an inconsistently applied rule – which I previously knew nothing about — that pertains to the process by which such political contributions are approved by NBC.

Certainly this mistake merited a form of public acknowledgment and/or internal warning, and an on-air discussion about the merits of limitations on such campaign contributions by all employees of news organizations. Instead, after my representative was assured that no suspension was contemplated, I was suspended without a hearing, and learned of that suspension through the media.

You should also know that I did not attempt to keep any of these political contributions secret; I knew they would be known to you and the rest of the public. I did not make them through a relative, friend, corporation, PAC, or any other intermediary, and I did not blame them on some kind of convenient ‘mistake’ by their recipients.

When a website contacted NBC about one of the donations, I immediately volunteered that there were in fact three of them; and contrary to much of the subsequent reporting, I immediately volunteered to explain all this, on-air and off, in the fashion MSNBC desired.
I genuinely look forward to rejoining you on Countdown on Tuesday, to begin the repayment of your latest display of support and loyalty – support and loyalty that is truly mutual.”

Pretty much what you thought happened, yes, and raises some legitimate questions as to MSNBC’s applications of the policy. See my most recent reply to Lo for more of my thoughts on that.

This does clearly color what MSNBC did, but my overall position on the standards people like Olbermann should be held to remains unchanged. Even if I did not know I was expected to seek some form of permission and was already resolute on my decision to donate, it would still be my first thought as a paid journalist to tell my producer where I am putting my money in the political arena, not where I have already put it.

A simple fact has been missing from coverage of the Olbermann suspention and it’s implications have been overlooked in discussions of the matter. Olbermann had a contract.

Presumably his contract explicitly bound him to comply with the policies of MSNBC. Presuably he knew what those were, or should have. Presumably he knowingly violated his contract. We must presume because nobody is telling us. To me the (presumed) fact that he violated his contract is more significant than the details of how he violated it.

Olbermann may be a commentator rather than a reporter, but he backs up his commentary with what seem to be very credible, well researched facts. To me, that is what makes him persuasive (when he is) and valuable. If he cannot be trusted to honor his own contract, can he be trusted to deliver the facts?

No doubt his contract requires him to adhere to policy, and this is thus a violation. If it wasn’t they would not be able to suspend him without pay. That said I believe he can be trusted, and this whole thing is meant to teach him a little humility and proper behavior. While I like his show immensely and find the information on it valuable, he does have an ego the size of Texas and I think it is probably not a bad idea for MSNBC to make him have to contemplate taking it down a notch or two

Good question. From what I have been told the answer is Scarborough yes, Buchanan no – which is keeping with policy. Buchanan is a paid commentator, not a host or reporter and as such does not fall under the policy that Scarborough and Olbermann do. I am not judging the policy, just stating what it is. The policy itself could probably use some tweaking. That said, I only have that info on Scarborough and Buchanan second hand. I’ll try to find out more and add it as an update if I do.

As a journalist myself, and one who’s been around a long time, I chafe whenever a media company punishes a worker, or controls their off-the-clock activities, because of “objectivity” — the need for the company’s product to appear so. I first became aware of the issue years ago when a newspaper in the Northwest disciplined a copy editor because she marched in a pro-choice demonstration. Employer’s policy or not, some things should be outside the employer’s reach. The Olbermann case is an over-reaction and over-reach. I’m less less troubled by donations made by individuals, of any size, than the massive donations made by corporations to “buy” politicans.

As I point out in the article, I agree that objectivity is a myth, and a damaging one at that. I also agree that some aspects of MSNBC’s policy are questionable. For example, I do believe he should be required to report political activity beforehand, but not to seek permission for it. That said, he knew the policy and he violated it, and they chose to enforce it. The polcy may be an over-reach, but I think we all have policies where we work that we disagree with, but we know what they are and we live with the consequences if we violate them. My whole point being that this is being spun as a case of stifling speech, which it is not. If MSNBC wanted to stifle Olbermann’s speech they could simply cancel his show.

And it kind of goes back to the Stewart/Colbert false equivalence thing. Why is it so necessary to lump in opposite sides of the spectrum to demonstrate “balance” and “reasonableness”? Olbermann gets suspended for showing partisanship, and the right sneers, and meanwhile, they have a 24 hour Republican propaganda machine working furiously to elect their party for eternity.

Why is addressing THAT somehow part of the problem? What’s going on here?

It isn’t even really showing partisanship that he was suspended for. He was suspended for an act of political activism that he did not discuss with his producers first. The issue to me is the openness, not the activism.